BONN - Kyoto Land. Get used to it. What is it? That's what delegates
from more than 150 nations are trying to decide in Bonn,
Germany. Entering the second week of negotiations, the delegates the
U.N. global warming talks are finding precise definitions hard to come
by.

Kyoto Land refers to land that may be identified as a "carbon sink."
The Kyoto Protocol requires that "land use, land use change, and
forests" (LULUCF) be included in determining how much carbon dioxide
is in the atmosphere at any given time.

That means, simply, that land use, land use changes, and forest use and
growth, must be monitored and reported to the United Nations. Exactly
which lands and which forests are among the issues on which the delegates
are finding it so difficult to reach agreement.

Then comes the question of measurements. How do you measure how much
carbon is absorbed by a tree, or a forest, or a pasture? At what point
in a tree's life does it stop absorbing carbon and begin to generate carbon?

Then, of course, there is the question of what to do with the information,
assuming that the other questions get resolved. A 1998 study published
in Science, a highly regarded scientific journal, reported that carbon
sinks in North America absorbed more carbon dioxide than was produced
by human activity. Which, if correct, seems to negate the purpose of the
Protocol altogether.

But wait, Richard Houghton at the Woods Hole Research Center, claims
that the study is flawed, and he conducted a study that reported only
10 to 30 percent of man-made carbon to be absorbed by the sinks. So goes
the to-and-fro of scientific debate surrounding the entire global warming
controversy.

The scientific controversy seems to be irrelevant to the negotiators.
What's important is agreeing on which lands are going to be monitored,
how the monitoring will be conducted and reported uniformly among the
nations, and how much, if any, credit is given to nations that have vast
carbon sinks.

All of this would be painfully boring if it were not for the fact that
whatever decisions are taken regarding Kyoto Lands, will have direct impact
upon landowners in America.

In America, it would not seem improper at all for a land owner to ask
what business the United Nations has snooping around on his property counting
trees and cows and measuring how much the grass has grown, At these U.N.
meetings, it's almost unthinkable that a private land user would dare
question the government about anything. In fact, a nations that permits
its citizens to ask such impertinent questions is likely to be labeled
as breeding "xenophobic nationalism."

The fact is that most of America is a carbon sink. By any definition
of carbon sinks yet proposed at these meetings, most of America will become
Kyoto Lands. Exactly what that means to private land owners has yet to
be determined. The very fact, however, that thousands of international
diplomats and NGO (non-government organization) observers, are spending
tons of tax dollars meeting in Bonn, discussing the consequences of land
use and land use changes in America, should make blood pressure rise among
the ranks of private land owners.

The use of private land has already been severely constricted by wetlands,
kangaroo rat lands, "Legacy" lands, heritage lands, viewshed
lands, and open-space lands. All of these constrictions have come about,
directly or indirectly, as a result of United Nations policies. The addition
of Kyoto lands may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Americans have no quarrel with protecting the environment. Conserving
energy is prudent, and won't hurt even if there is no such thing as global
warming. Americans don't even mind if the White House squanders a few
hundred million sending delegates to all these U.N. meetings. But there
is a limit to patience, and there is a point beyond which caution becomes
absurd. Kyoto land could well be that point.

It is one thing to increase taxes. Americans grumble, and then pay. It's
another thing to impose restrictions on land use. Americans grumble, but
unless they are personally affected, they go on about their business.
Kyoto Land, by its very nature, is likely to stir up a hornet's nest so
ferocious that delegates to future U.N. meetings may choose to stay home.

Few delegates know the feeling that comes over a person who has worked
all his life to own a piece of land in America. Nor can they have any
appreciation for the feeling that inspires a land owner when he watches
the sun rise above that land, to announce a new day of opportunity. Nor
can they have any understanding of the investment in time and effort,
sweat and blood, a land owner willingly puts into "his" land.
Most importantly, few delegates can possibly have any comprehension of
the extent to which a land owner may go to protect his land.

In America, there is an unwritten, rarely spoken, code of ethics among
land owners: don't mess with my family, and don't mess with my land.

America is not only the land of the free, it is still the home of the
brave. Whenever the challenge is sufficient, the brave will do whatever
it takes to keep the land free. The challenge presented by Kyoto Lands
may be sufficient.